Win for free speech

Contra Costa Times ^ | 5/31/5 | Editor

[SmithL]

LAST YEAR, Contra Costa County ignored the First Amendment to the Constitution and violated the free speech rights of a religious organization. The county, citing its policy of denying use of public spaces for religious purposes, banned the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries from meeting at the Antioch Library.

Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled against the county. He correctly said that when the county makes a room available to the public in a library, it cannot enforce a policy that bans religious purposes. The county doesn't seem to understand free speech includes religious speech.

David Green, executive director of the First Amendment Project, said as long as religious groups don't use a room so often that it becomes a publicly funded worship place, it should get equal access. Even Americans United for Separation of Church and State supported Faith Center. Spokesman Rob Boston said the government cannot exclude groups simply because they have a religious viewpoint.

Amazingly, county attorney Kelly Flanagan disagrees. She said the county cannot allow a group to practice religion in a space funded by taxpayers and that the group's free speech is protected as long as taxes don't pay for it. What nonsense.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ..." That means government agencies must remain neutral on religious speech.

Free speech is a basic right regardless of the public place in which it is practiced. Taxes pay for many public venues, such as meeting halls, schools and libraries, where people have the right to express their views, including religious ones. Court rulings have upheld the right of student religious clubs to meet in public schools. Libraries are no different.

Instead of supporting free speech, the county plans to use taxpayer money to try to abridge it by continuing its fight against Faith Center. It's an ill-advised battle. The county should admit its error and change its policy now.

[SmithL]

Follow-up to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411669/posts

[atomicweeder]

Something like this happened where I live. The local school system lets all manner of community organizations meet in schools at night, for a use fee. In their infinite wisdom, the county thought that, to avoid promoting religion, the county should charge a HIGHER fee to church groups than to other groups.

By the time the church group lawyers got done with the county, they had reverted to an equal fee for everyone, and paid back the higher fees to the religious groups, and paid the attorney fees.

Moral: Don't let 'em get away with stuff. Sue 'em!

[Spok]

If a public facility is available for private use for any purpose, it can't discriminate between private groups. That's why some malls and shopping centers won't even let the Girl Scouts sell their cookies because it opens the door to the whacko's as well.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Amazingly, county attorney Kelly Flanagan disagrees. She said the county cannot allow a group to practice religion in a space funded by taxpayers and that the group's free speech is protected as long as taxes don't pay for it."

I can't figure out if people like Flanagan are motivated by anti-religious sentiments or if they simply don't understand the First Amendment. It makes you wonder about the quality of their legal education.

[Steve_Seattle]

"If a public facility is available for private use for any purpose, it can't discriminate between private groups. That's why some malls and shopping centers won't even let the Girl Scouts sell their cookies because it opens the door to the whacko's as well."

But then some judges will say that a mall is a public venue and that it's unconstitutional to prohibit ANY form of expression. In Seattle, a judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for the city to prohibit people - usually rock music promoters - from posting signs on telephone poles. He said the law placed an undue burden on free speech, as if it were wrong for the city to expect the rock promoters to advertise through normal channels such as newspapers.

[orionblamblam]

>Kelly Flanagan should also argue that religious people cannot use county roads or walkways to go to church ...

In a purely strict sense, that might be Constitutional. Read the first ammendment and see *who* it prohibits from interferring in speech and worship.

Just sayin'....

[thomaswest]

But does "freedom of religion" mean that any and every group has the 'right' to hold prayer in the middle of an intersection or on a freeway? I think non-Christians have the right to attend public-funded school meetings and use public-funded streets without impediments and prayers.

[Spok]

If a public facility is available for private use for any purpose, it can't discriminate between private groups. That's why some malls and shopping centers won't even let the Girl Scouts sell their cookies because it opens the door to the whacko's as well.

[ssaftler]

In a purely strict sense, that might be Constitutional. Read the first ammendment and see *who* it prohibits from interferring in speech and worship

But what about the "separation of church and state"? If the state built the roads, the church can't use it without the tacit approval of the state, hence it must be unconstitutional!

(Another case of using absurdity to prove absurdity)

[orionblamblam]

> If the state built the roads...

... then Congress has nothing to say in the matter.

[ssaftler]

WHY are you trying to make sense out of an obviously absurd situation?

This whole "separation of church and state" crap belongs on the Urban Legends page right next to the $250.00 Neiman-Marcus Cookie recipe.

[plan2succeed.org]

Had the religious group been extolling the virtues of pornography, the librarians would not have complained. While this religious group was expelled, pornography comes in over the Internet like at Antioch Library, libraries have sufficient means to control it, the law and the US Supreme Court say it's perfectly legal to control it and some libraries must control it, but the ALA (American Library Assoc.) tells libraries to defy the law, thereby allowing inappropriate material that attracts criminals who may molest the children. It's nice to see the ALA on the lookup for religious people gathering together, while the ALA defies the law and defends the rights of criminals. A little backward, don't you think? See http://www.plan2succeed.org/ for more info.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I can't figure out if people like Flanagan are motivated by anti-religious sentiments or if they simply don't understand the First Amendment. It makes you wonder about the quality of their legal education.

It is probably a product of their legal education by their leftist profs. They learn all the nuances of using our laws to subvert our freedoms. They stretch the establishment clause into separation of church and state and ignore the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" bit. Same with the 2nd Amendment.

[orionblamblam]

No, it applies to the states as well... but only the parts that *say* that it applies to the states. The states agreed to that when they signed up. So while nobody can have their rights to bear arms infringed, West Dakota, for example, could decide to set Wicca as the official state religion and ban all newspapers except for the Daily Pentagram.